A
reading of an op-ed column by Catholic Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, of
Denver, that appeared in the October 22 New York Times entitled (sic) “Faith
and Patriotism,” as well as two previous columns and a speech of his from
which it was generated, provokes this rebuttal:

After writing some
things I agree with (1), Chaput dropped this bomb: “Exiling
religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens
from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a
national epidemic.”

I agree that we’re
experiencing a contagion of political depravity, but why do so many people
link decency to religious faith, failing to observe the sophisticated
efficacy of principled skepticism or the life-enhancing possibilities of
iconoclasm, apostasy and dissent?

Without religion
morality still exists. But lacking morality, religion is invalid. The
survival instinct generates morality to deal with the necessities of
self-defense, for the reasonable payback (vice blowback) of freethinking
self-respect, and the finer existential yield from being good for goodness’
sake. (2)

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Let me be clear: By
morality I mean that reason which emerges from innate human conscience; by
religion I mean the bureaucratic institutionalization (i.e.:
rationalization) of faith and worship. Religion is merely a socialized,
static rationalization of goodness; it is not goodness itself. It creates a
symbolic hierarchy of an imagined or theoretical divine order based on
revelation and faith that are ritualistically performed. If what its dogma
claims to be God was real (i.e.: independently existing beyond its theology,
rather than being virtual), it might be said that religion tends to confuse
God’s image (e.g.: “man,” “word”), or the idea of God (e.g.: law, prophecy
and the cross), with God itself. However, religion doesn’t deal with the
nature of reality. Instead, it tries to administer human nature via
authoritative language. By doing this, religion hopes to quantify God,
justifying nature’s unsentimental ways by doling out rose-colored glasses to
the justice-starved, rationale-feeding minds of its human flock, or its
captive mass audience [pun intended], whichever you prefer.

NOW, WHY REALITY DOESN’T REALLY MATTER

The good bishop then
drops another shell, grunting: “Patriotism, which is a virtue [my emphasis]
for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and
nonviolently, for what we believe…People should act on what they claim [my
emphasis] to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and
lying to themselves and the rest of us.”

Now the irrational,
even dishonest statements, which Chaput begins his column with, and I could
manage to politely hold my tongue about—that those who say religious folks
shouldn’t “impose their beliefs on society,” and cite the Constitutionally
mandated separation of church and state, are “frequently dishonest”
purveyors of “ultimately dangerous sound bytes;” that “pluralism” works by
one “group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us,” and that such behavior
is “not inherently dangerous;” and that by not participating in the public
debate religious people “weaken it intellectually”—begin making sense.

Chaput’s philosophy is
faith-based, not reason-based, and therefore kaput. He nonetheless asks “why
should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose” legal
abortion, stem cell research or any other activity his religion deems evil?
The rules, to the best of my knowledge, aren’t any different for them.
Reason’s dialectical conventions seem slanted—from the perspective of pious
fanatics—because the zealots have lost nearly every public debate over the
fundamental nature of reality for the last 500 years. Their record speaks
for itself; they’re losers, philosophically speaking. Reason eludes them
because they won’t allow facts or the reality of others to pierce the
armored coating of their faith. Until recently, the Church didn’t accept
Galileo’s discoveries (though it had no problem with Columbus’s). It’s still
grappling over the unique mode of its own wicked record of pedophilia,
homophobia and Zionist realpolitik. (3) Yes, the
Church is retarded when it comes to perceiving reality.

Furthermore, as Henry
David Thoreau tersely writes about his Concord neighbors during the
Mexican-American War, “Patriotism is a maggot in their heads.”
(4) Patriotism is not a “virtue,” as Chaput would have it, because it
makes people betray their private conscience, which is more valid to them
than faithfully adhering to a dogma they know is false just to be viewed as
a good citizen. When propriety replaces reason as a fundamental motivation,
faith is needed to maintain one’s disastrous, chosen course. In a way, faith
is a form of hubris, or overweening pride, if this is indeed the case.

SINS OF THE FALLEN

Consider, again,
Chaput’s closing remark: “People should act on what they claim [my emphasis]
to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to
themselves and the rest of us.”

Is the good bishop
casting stones from inside a glass house?

One might consider the
philosophical inadequacies, nay the hypocrisy, resonating from Chaput's
message, but first let’s consider the formative elements of any coherent,
self-justifying system of human thought, belief or faith:

§ The existence of
material reality must be represented the way people experience it, which
requires great empathy and tremendous labor on the part of priest, shaman,
philosopher, artist or whatnot. In other words, experience must jibe with
what one’s being told about one’s psychic identity and material function, or
purpose.

§ An overall
sensibility and a particular, intellectually rigorous philosophy that
exercises the most cognitively gifted and trusted human minds, validating it
for those with other valued qualities within the group, must not only be
allowed to evolve, but also nurtured into self-sustainable existence.

§ Truth and philosophy
(or theology, art, fiction and even literary criticism for that matter) are
recognized as oppositional realities. It’s best when adherents to truth have
a lasting and profound ignorance of secular wisdom (i.e.: street smarts),
though such qualities might be personally vital to them. Likewise, hipsters [sic] don’t worry about the truth because they know the truth takes care of
itself. Philosophy is a seed of faith.

§ It answers, or shows
how to answer, the questions life generates—persistent logic is consistently
and reasonably addressed by its canon.

§ Faith must derive
from a possible and philosophically coherent world; its usefulness need not
correspond with the actuality of its assumptions so long as those
assumptions do not provoke injustice. It is acknowledged that the implied
metaphysics of any thought system is likely false, or at least not
infallible, if mistaken for Nature’s (i.e.: God’s) own. (5)

Now let’s consider a
few more of Chaput’s published remarks:

§ “In a knowledge
economy, religion looks stupid. In an aristocracy of brains, faith is for
suckers. We can see traces of this attitude toward organized religion as
early as Jefferson and Franklin. But as America has become a world power in
science and technology, mass media, wealth and economic influence, the
confidence of her knowledge classes has grown…In their self-reliance and
overconfidence, our thinking classes have seceded not just from the common
world around them but from reality itself.” (6)

If one were cynical,
one might think the Bishop replaced the subgroup “Americans of white European
descent” with that of Christians.

§ “In rejecting its
Christian identity, Europe has basically erased its own memory. In a hundred
years Europe will be a radically different continent—and quite possibly
Muslim, because Muslims continue to bear children, and in having children
they claim the future.” (7)

§ “…The teacher should
never lose sight of the fact that real freedom, Gospel freedom, is a very
different creature from secular ideas of liberty, and choice for choice’s
sake…Real freedom emerges from self-sacrifice, not self-assertion.”
(8)

§ “Persons who reject
God [are]…without beauty, without form, and without real freedom…That’s why
we help God shape those whom we love…`Go therefore, and make disciples of
all nations.’” (9)

§ “…trust in the
authority of Scripture and the teachings of the Catholic faith; zeal to
spread the Good News of the cross; and humility to put aside our own agendas
and submit our wills to the guidance of the Church.” (10)

§ “…Western
societies—many of them constituting the Christian world as we once knew
it—are removing themselves from the future.” (11)

These statements
reveal a worldview that is devoutly racist, irrational, imperialistic,
dehumanizing and alienating to those perceived as unsaved and unclean,
sadomasochistic in its self-hatred and hatred of others, and intentionally
deceitful.

Consider this evidence
of Chaput’s tenuous relationship with the truth for political expediency’s
sake:

§ “The ethics of
cloning, embryonic stem cell research and related technologies is simple.
It’s the science that’s complex…Claims of impending miracle cures based on
embryonic stem cell research are simply false. In fact, no such hope exists
anywhere in the foreseeable future. The science involved doesn’t support the
marketing campaign…As an example, [syndicated columnist Charles] Krauthammer
cites Ronald McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institutes for
Health, who has publicly acknowledged that stem cells as a cure for
Alzheimer’s disease are a fiction, but that `people need a fairy tale.’”
(12)

During an August 10
appearance, however, on PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer, McKay said:

“You can make
beautiful neurons that work incredibly…There will be an absolutely
overwhelming moral case for developing new policies as the technology
demands different types of cells, different types of manipulation of the
cell.”

Newshour correspondent
Susan Dentzer reported that McKay’s research team mainly wanted to help
those suffering from Parkinson’s Disease, where brain cells essential to the
creation of neurotransmitters die off.

“McKay and his
research team recently took stem cells from mouse embryos, then turned them
into dopamine-producing [neurotransmitter] cells. You then put them back
into the rats that had been engineered to have a form of Parkinson’s. What
happened then?” Dentzer asked.

“Well, the rats, as it
were, get better…our data show that the injured side recovers.”

Newshour also reported
that McKay had proven human embryonic cells can also be transformed into
neurotransmitters and that the “rapidly evolving science will drive policy
change.”

Sounds to me like
Krauthammer and the good Bishop are mistaken with regards to McKay. I’m sure
it’s a simple misunderstanding. Oh yeah, they were talking about Alzheimer’s
Disease, not Parkinson’s. Excuse me for twisting the facts. If I were
cynical, I might surmise that Dr. McKay was dissing Alzheimer’s to enhance
Parkinson’s in the eyes of the money dudes. But I’m not.

§ Writing in June
1999, about a New York Times article—“The Far Right Sees the Dawn of the
Moral Minority,” published that February—focusing on how upset Christian
conservatives were about President Clinton’s impeachment acquittal, Chaput
states: “…I certainly don’t believe that separating ourselves from current
American culture would solve anything. On the contrary: It would make
matters worse. We cannot be leaven in society if we remove ourselves from
the recipe…The Times article is still useful, though, in one important way:
It reminds us that traditional Christian faith–the kind of faith you and I
were raised on—may be less and less of a force in our society in the decades
ahead. Christians may in fact be the `moral minority’ in the not so distant
future. And that has very big implications for how we preach Jesus Christ
and teach the Catholic faith. Fifty years ago, we could count on our culture
reinforcing, or at least reflecting, our religious beliefs. We no longer
have that luxury. And 50 years from now, the world will be even more
drastically different.” (13)

Then, five years
later, he writes: “Consider a few facts. Ninety-six percent of Americans
believe in God; 90 percent pray; 93 percent of American homes have a Bible;
roughly 80 percent of Americans describe themselves as Christian; and more
than 40 percent of Americans attend church weekly—which, at least on the
surface, makes the United States one of the most religiously devout
countries in the world… Somewhere between 50 million and 80 million American
Christians claim they’ve been `born again.’ Americans spend $4 billion
dollars a year on CDs, books and bumper stickers honoring Jesus Christ. The
Passion of the Christ made more than $600 million in the first six months of
its release [will it be nominated for 60 Academy Awards?], most of it in the
United States. Americans in 2004—and not only Christian Americans—remain a
deeply religious people, not just in words, but also in practice. That
doesn’t stop us from also being sinners and hypocrites. But it does mean
that most of us draw the moral roadmap for our lives from our religious
faith.” (14)

Boy, that’s a big
shift in five years. Either Chaput had a dramatic turnaround, or the nation
did. The interesting thing is, Chaput’s still a Republican and the country’s
still on the same holy roller kick it’s always been on (though it’s
certainly on an upswing lately). If one were cynical, one might think the
Bishop replaced the subgroup Americans of white European descent with that
of Christians. In 50 years, America’s not going to be lily white any more,
though it will probably remain very Christian, and increasingly Catholic. As
Catholicism spreads through the developing world, and those people come here
and have lots of babies…well, you see the point. If one were cynical, one
might think Chaput’s a closet racist, or just plain stupid.

But who’s cynical? Not
me. I’m shocked an archbishop in the Catholic church would practice the
categorical relativism evidenced above, allowing for the shifting of
fundamental truths about a nation’s character dependent on what Christian
white man is temporarily playing Caesar. Facts cannot dissuade the faithful,
thank God. It fits the Ineffable’s purpose to see such malignant pests laid
waste to reality. It’s called natural selection (no wonder they hate it).

About 4,500 years ago
an Egyptian pharaoh was the first to dream up monotheism. Homo sapiens
sapiens has existed about ten times that long. Earth has existed a million
times that, and the universe, according to the latest guess, roughly 2.5
million times longer.

SIMPLE ANSWERS IN CONFUSING TIMES

Back to the original
question: Why do so many people link decency to religious faith, failing to
observe the sophisticated efficacy of principled skepticism or the
life-enhancing possibilities of iconoclasm, apostasy and dissent?

Ironically, the answer
may be in the Bishop’s own words:

“In an age of
confusion, the Church is our only reliable guide. If today’s political
environment shows us anything, it’s that public character and private virtue
are disappearing from the vocabulary of civic life…We are entering an age
which will have its own unique challenges…we need to form disciples in the
decades ahead who are prepared for a world drastically different from
anything in American memory…Western societies—many of them constituting the
Christian [i.e.: white] world as we once knew it—are removing themselves
from the future [by failing to multiply—too much contraception and
abortion]…the assumptions which we’ve made, for most of our lives, about the
shape of the future…well, they’re going to be wrong. Drastically wrong. The
human story will remain the same, but the organizational terrain of human
societies and institutions will not. And we can’t avoid much of what’s
coming, both the good and the bad. If the entire developed world woke up
from its death wish tomorrow…it would take decades to have any effect. More
importantly though, if a society has freely chosen against life, does it
make any sense to mourn it? Beyond a certain critical threshold, the human
family might be better without such a society.” (15)

Chilling words indeed.
Somewhere in the Bible, or at least Bob Dylan, there’s a line or two about
what happens to those who pray for bad things to happen to others. Usually,
the beseecher is unconscious of the fact she’s damning her own devil, and
she’s gonna get what she’s been wishing on someone else.

Of course, much of
what Chaput’s saying here is true, but the devil’s in the details. Chaput is
limiting his framework not just to humankind (a common fault among secular
humanists) or even Christians, but to Caucasian American Christians [or CACs]
in particular. That’s pretty unambiguous, perhaps too specific for my taste.

In an age of
confusion, Nature is our only reliable guide. If today’s political
environment shows us anything, it’s that public character and private virtue
are disappearing from the essence of civic life…We are entering an age that
will have its own unique challenges…we need to inform individuals in
preparation for the decades ahead, which will be drastically different from
anything we were raised to expect from life…Residents of economically
developed societies—many of them constituting white civilization as we once
knew it—no longer wish to dominate the planet’s future and are, therefore,
behaving according to their own private conscience, and reasonably lowering
their fertility rates…the assumptions we’ve made about the shape of the
future, based on an outmoded belief system, were drastically wrong. The
human story, if it continues, will be severely altered, and new organizing
principles will be needed to form new institutions that will adequately
reflect, and relate, to the new reality. This is unavoidable; we will not be
delivered from this evil. If the entire developed world woke up from its
death wish tomorrow…it would take decades to have any effect. More
importantly though, if a society freely chooses to kill off the global
ecosystem—does it make any sense to mourn its passing? Beyond a certain
critical threshold, the global family of Earthlings might be better off
without the white man’s civilization, as it is now constituted.

Which analysis of the
future—Chaput’s or mine—is closer to what you really think? Which one is
truly Christian? What good is your knowledge under Chaput’s system? His
answer, like Mel Gibson and our President’s, is that suffering is good
because it puts us in touch with his vision of God.

So who’s really being
ugly? If most of us were really honest with ourselves, we’d admit that
life’s pretty complicated and it pays, if one’s responsible, to at least be
a little skeptical regarding the things we’re being told by people with
power.

The dirtiest secret of
skepticism—everyone knows it leads to good intelligence—is that it’s a hell
of a lot of fun. Once one is wise to the fact that honesty and power tend to
be inversely proportional, that disconnect proves itself a mother lode of
laughs.

Of course, nothing
scares the old man more than being laughed at by his employees. Deep down he
knows the insecurity of his position and has therefore learned how to secure
it. That’s his secret. Your secret—and mine, of course—is our own radical
dissent. C’est la vie. That’s the ghost running our machine.

But don’t listen to
me, I’m not religious. What looms large from a distance, close up ain’t
never that big. So trust yourself. (16) Fairly moral
advice, don’t ya think?

And you didn’t even
have to pay me for it; I just feel better now that I’ve given it to you.

1. I agree with Chaput
that, “Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the
dignity of every person,” but would extend dignity to every earthling. Life
isn’t merely human. I also agree with his statement that, “If religious
believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public
debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.” I would extend
religious believers to everyone, whether they believe or not. Chaput is also
correct when he says “civil authorities are never exempt from moral
engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members.” Again, I
would extend that to everybody.
2. Nontheistic morality is promoted by recent research indicating a person's
emotional and physical health can improve by performing good works. Allan
Luks' The Healing Power of Doing Good, science is revealing that helping
others can produce a "helper's high" involving an initial rush of good
feelings followed by a longer-lasting period of emotional well-being. These
benefits make sense in terms of human evolutionary history. Early societies
that were able to develop compassion, altruism, and cooperation would have a
competitive advantage over societies that did not…Emotional benefits of
being kind to others are similarly described in Dr. Richard Carlson's book
Don't Sweat the Small Stuff. "Perhaps the greatest reason to practice random
kindness is that it brings great contentment into your life," he says. "Each
act of kindness rewards you with positive feelings and reminds you of the
important aspects of life - service, kindness, and love."
3. Zionism, see NationMaster Encyclopedia: “In the 1840s there was a strong
sense that the freedoms and ideals of the United States had far reaching
importance and needed to be brought to new lands, thereby broadening the
nation's reach and extending its borders. It was a time of American
Romanticism, an offshoot of a more general cultural outlook that emphasized
feeling, sentiment, and emotion over science and reason, serving as a
reaction to the Age of Enlightenment thought of the previous generation. The
world was not a static mechanism with fixed rules and boundaries, according
to this new mindset, but rather an organic entity full of boundless
potential, and progress could be attained through sincere belief, hard work,
and bravery in the face of great risk and change. The 1830s and 1840s had
seen a wealth of change due to the rapid incorporation of several extremely
profound technological innovations into society, including the railroad, the
rotary press, and the telegraph. Religious reformation movements had spread
throughout the nation (perhaps due to apprehensions and anxieties about the
changes taking place), and missionary attitudes and zeal stimulated many to
expand the reach of Protestant Christianity into the frontier. The divinity
of manifest destiny originated in the seminal Judeo-Christian tradition of
Zionism…Among all, belief was strong that anything could happen, and
anything could be done, and much of this potential was attributed (rightly
or wrongly) to the superiority of the American Way of Life. Democratic
republicanism was felt to be the best form of government, and was clearly
God's plan for mankind, so it was an obligation that it and freedom should
be brought to as broad an area as possible. To many it seemed a clear and
unavoidable destiny that would eventually reach everywhere, making the
United States a leader in agriculture, industry, commerce, the arts and
sciences, and all intellectual areas; "Manifest Destiny" could be thought of
as an ideal of the "boundlessness of no limits" in all areas, providing a
more idealistic rationale for expansion than mere ambition for land.”
Catholic Zionism, or the Crusades, of course, preceded all this, which has
provided a wonderful roadmap for all later forms of Western expansion.
4. Thoreau, “patriotism is a maggot in their heads,” from the Conclusion of
Walden: “The universe is wider than our views of it…Our voyage is only great
circle-sailing, and doctors prescribe for diseases of the skin merely. One
hastens to southern Africa to chase the giraffe;…but I trust it would be
nobler game to shoot one’s self…What does Africa,--what does the West stand
for? Is not our own interior white on the chart, black though it may prove,
like the coast, when discovered?…Are these the problems of mankind?…Be
rather the…Lewis and Clarke…of your own streams and oceans; explore your own
higher latitudes…be a Columbus to whole new continents and worlds within
you, opening new channels, not of trade but of thought. Every man is the
lord of a realm beside which the earthly empire of the Czar is but a petty
state, a hummock left by the ice. Yet some can be patriotic who have no
self-respect, and sacrifice the greater to the less. They love the soil
which makes their graves, but have no sympathy with the spirit which may
still animate their clay. Patriotism is a maggot in their heads…Explore
thyself…Only the defeated and deserters go to the wars, cowards that run
away and enlist. Start now on that farthest western way which…lead on a
direct tangent to this sphere.” In other words, be a Zionist of the self.
5. William H. Gass, Fiction and the Figures of Life, “Philosophy and
the Form of Fiction,” Nonpareil Books, Boston, 1979.
6. From Divided Hearts: Americans, Religion and National Policy, Remarks by
Chaput commemorating “Religious Institutions Law Day,” October 7, 2004.
7. Ibid, 6.
8. From Forming Disciples for the Third Millennium, Chaput, June 1999.
9. Ibid, 8.
10. Ibid, 8.
11. Ibid, 8.
12. Newshour transcript.
13. Ibid, 12.
14. Ibid, 6.
15. Ibid, 8.
16. Bob Dylan, Empire Burlesque, Columbia Records, 1985.